Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Paul & Eleanor (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 03:34:24 CET 

Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id DAA11148 for cavexml-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:30:21 +0100
Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id DAA11144 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:30:20 +0100
Received: from slc6.modem.xmission.com ([166.70.9.6] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14XDQk-0008UJ-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:30:30 -0700
Message-ID: <3A99C0B0.5C909C97@xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:34:24 -0700
From: Paul & Eleanor <goodhill_at_xmission.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Subject: Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values
References: <3A85A28A.52FC1047_at_xmission.com> <3A8F4C21.A4AC9A4C_at_speleonics.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch

Michael Lake wrote:
> Yes if its written as 14-12-2001 we know that it must be dd-mm-yyyy but
>
> Date: 07-11-2001
>
> 7th day of November or the 11th day of July?
>
> You cannot detect a non-conforming format all of the time.
> QED. :-)
>
> Conclusion: we have to split the dd, mm and yyyy into either attributes
> of a date element or split then into individual elements. I'd go for
> attributes.

Conclusion you haven't read ISO8601 which walks away from all existing
formats and starts over. Please read the pages I referenced which
was written by a German who works and studied in England, who takes
a few pot shots at Americans on his site, and despite all of these
marks against him (just kidding!) makes a good argument for
ISO8601.

But if people want to spend three tags or attributes to define something
which there are already at least three international standards for
I guess it is not worth arguing over.

-Paul

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:01 CET